Basal Eurasian discussion

[theplayer]

My current hypothesis regarding Dzudzuana
1) Goyet/Fournol represent unadmixed 'West Eurasians'
2) Post-CI Eastern Europe get a small pulse of Basal from the Caucasus. Descendents of this mix include Kostenki/Sunghir, the Western part of ANE, and 'CWE'.
3) Dzudzuana = The above basal + 'CWE'

I wonder if you can also have Goyet/Fournol be admixed with this "basal" population?
You'd have a situation where all later paleolithic Europeans are a mix of an early('IUP') wave represented by Bacho Kiro and a later('UP') which is in highest proportion in Kostenki/Sunghir and lowest(but still present) in Goyet? The UP that stays in West Asia would be Basal basically.
Before expanding into Eurasia IUP would get more admixture from Neanderthals than UP(many possible explainations why)
If this model works out you get a simple model of two expansions, except Zlaty Kun, into Eurasia which also explains basal at the same time. 

This would supplant the standard Basal Eurasian model where Near-East = Europe + something deeper with Europe = Near-East + East Eurasia instead basically(there's a third option which is East Eurasia = Europe + something deeper). With "Europe" here I mean paleolithic Europe and "Near-East" also includes modern Europeans(basically any "basal-admixed" population). 
So it's an alternate explanation for why e.g. F4(outgroup, ancient europe, ENA, modern Europe)>0 and F4(outgroup, ENA, modern europe, ancient europe)>0 (analogous to East Asians = Onge + Tianyuan)

Something like this(just a general overview) is what I have in mind:

   

Arrows  from "Aurignacians" can be different mixes of BK/UP ancestry(e.g. more BK in Goyet).
In addition to Dzudzuana other populations in the Near-East, before additional admixture from ANE/ANA/etc, would also have the same admixture from Europe but in different amounts, Iran/Levant having more "basal" for example.

[Desdonas]

My current hypothesis regarding Dzudzuana
1) Goyet/Fournol represent unadmixed 'West Eurasians'
2) Post-CI Eastern Europe get a small pulse of Basal from the Caucasus. Descendents of this mix include Kostenki/Sunghir, the Western part of ANE, and 'CWE'.
3) Dzudzuana = The above basal + 'CWE'

I wonder if you can also have Goyet/Fournol be admixed with this "basal" population?
You'd have a situation where all later paleolithic Europeans are a mix of an early('IUP') wave represented by Bacho Kiro and a later('UP') which is in highest proportion in Kostenki/Sunghir and lowest(but still present) in Goyet? The UP that stays in West Asia would be Basal basically.
Before expanding into Eurasia IUP would get more admixture from Neanderthals than UP(many possible explainations why)
If this model works out you get a simple model of two expansions, except Zlaty Kun, into Eurasia which also explains basal at the same time. 

This would supplant the standard Basal Eurasian model where Near-East = Europe + something deeper with Europe = Near-East + East Eurasia instead basically(there's a third option which is East Eurasia = Europe + something deeper). With "Europe" here I mean paleolithic Europe and "Near-East" also includes modern Europeans(basically any "basal-admixed" population). 
So it's an alternate explanation for why e.g. F4(outgroup, ancient europe, ENA, modern Europe)>0 and F4(outgroup, ENA, modern europe, ancient europe)>0 (analogous to East Asians = Onge + Tianyuan)

Something like this(just a general overview) is what I have in mind:



Arrows  from "Aurignacians" can be different mixes of BK/UP ancestry(e.g. more BK in Goyet).
In addition to Dzudzuana other populations in the Near-East, before additional admixture from ANE/ANA/etc, would also have the same admixture from Europe but in different amounts, Iran/Levant having more "basal" for example.

The graph seems to have some problems.

1. BK is more East Eurasian, while Ust has some subtle Western affinity (especially to Goyet). So the positions of BK and Ust should exchange.

2. BK has extra Europe-specific Neanderthal, while some East Eurasian populations (Hoabinhian, Longlin, etc) have a relatively low Neanderthal level (mentioned in this thread before).

3. Yana-ANS may have no preference to Tianyuan or Onge, but MA1/ANE has significant Onge-affinity. Yana=proto-ANE+minor Tianyuan is a parsimonious explanation.

4. ZK occupies a position between traditional Basal and Crown. So either UP/basal=para-ZK+deeper, or ZK=pre-UP+pre-IUP.

[Kale]

Desdonas point 1 is precisely my concern with that sketch also.
It seems rather counterintuitive on geographic grounds, being that Ust-Ishim is quite far East and BK/Oase are clearly in Europe.
I wonder if latitude played a factor in Crown Eurasian spread? East-Eurasians form and spread from Kazakhstan latitudes, and Ust-Ishim/West-Eurasians spread from Russian latitudes?

EDIT: Somewhat unrelated, just saw this. Basically database of paleolithic archaeological sites on a map, click on a site and get a datasheet about it. Very cool!
https://www.roceeh.uni-tuebingen.de/road...search.php

[Jerome]

Btw,Basal E-P177(E1B*) found in a Yemeni individual by FtDNA...
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=760

Important since this alongwith the D0-yemeni(more basal then the Nigerian D0) can reset everything we know about the origin and history of DE.

[Desdonas]

Latitude may truely distinguish the Ust-Goyet lineage and East Eurasian lineage. But I think that their common ancestor (Crown/C-K meta population) arose in eastern Iran Plateau. Anyway, AASI and Australasians should all head south, since they don't have the northern Denisova admixture (D0).

[Jerome]

If CF is crown Eurasian then DE must be basal eurasian and their ancestors (proto-eurasians) should be CT.
The confusion regarding ANA and taforalt can be cleared with the fact that a)ANA wasn't African proper and instead seems to be an early split from the proto Eurasian group ,it should also be closer to proto eurasians than to east Africans like mota


B)ANA likely had mixed with back-migrating E carrying basal eurasians before the iberomaurusian profile formed.
So the E in IBM could be from the basal part,for all we know.
We need more samples to discern these things but still it's a plausible theory.


Considering that CF and D are almost fully Eurasian ,I find it too much of a stretching to say that CF and D left africa leaving only E rather than simply say CF and DE were born somewhere on the border of Eurasia and Africa (probably sinai,NW Saudi arabia) and then E stayed with the basal Eurasian group and later mixed with Africans while D went alongwith crown Eurasian groups.

The original African groups would be subclades of A0,A,BT and B and got E after basal Eurasian introgression around 50k BC(there was a study which mentioned that the minor Neanderthal alleles in modern Africans date to this period 50-40k BC).
This is the study http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.01.012
This theory is supported by the fact that the most archaic Africans with early splits seem to be A and B like ju hoang and biaka while those near Eurasia/Nile Valley seem to be E (east Africans).
E in west Africans seems to be very recent with most TMRCA dating after LGM and mostly afterr Holocene.

Instead of searching for basal Eurasian in the Persian gulf which was surrounded by Neanderthals(shanidar,zarzi,warsawi,wezmeh) and where there are barely any sites in MIS-5/MIS-4 ,we should instead look for basal Eurasian on the border/periphery of Africa and Asia,that is,somewhere in Sinai,Nile valley,Libyan coast or NW Saudi arabia/upper hijaz where the basal split likely happened (if we consider that the emiran people of levant were crown Eurasian like,(emiran->bohunician°>bacho kiro ) ,then we would expect basal eurasians to be a bit westwards from the levant and probably in Nile valley,Libyan coast.

E in natufians could be from the basal Eurasian+ANA mixed Taforalt group or b)could be from the original basal Eurasian admixture in kebarans.
We need more samples to clarify this, especially from paleolithic levant/kebarans.
Epi paleolithic north levantines should work for this job too.

Latitude may truely distinguish the Ust-Goyet lineage and East Eurasian lineage. But I think that their common ancestor (Crown/C-K meta population) arose in eastern Iran Plateau. Anyway, AASI and Australasians should all head south, since they don't have the northern Denisova admixture (D0).

Interesting,does this mean AASI and southern east eurasians didn't take the central asia->altai->amur->south path?

Most people had been thinking this.

[Kale]

Interesting,does this mean AASI and southern east eurasians didn't take the central asia->altai->amur->south path?

Most people had been thinking this.

Dig around here for some discussions involving the different strains of Denisovan ancestry. I forget the details but it seemed to suggest that different Denisovan strains North .vs. South implied that there were Northern and Southern routes.

[theplayer]

Here was some discussion regarding it: https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?...06#pid5506

however as I remember it from a thread in Anthrogenica, in the original paper there was no indication whether Tianyuan had only D0(or D2 as well), though people speculated that that might be the case(seems likely imo).
Perhaps there were a follow up that established this idk?

The paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...7419302181

[kolompar]

These days I am still too far from Dz and IE.
I try to figure out how the first HS appeared from Deni and Neand.
It is weird the whole variaty that we see in Africa, then it goes through some bottleneck and afther that few main lines continue.
But the most misterious are some archaic groups or individuals that show close relation to something like Marmoset and Macaque.. And these archaic rich individuals do not point to Africa, but to somewhere else.  Even America.
I am going to include more individuals for my next tests, including Dz. 
So far I have some idea, but still lot of mess. Fortunately there are some clear parts of the picture. There are some clear migration ways, where we may follow the connection between Africa and OOA. 
Another big challange are the haplogroups:  we see the oldest haplogropus in Africa, but I find some oldest archaic markers outside of Africa. 
I was pretty much able to find the missing components for WHG / EHG..  However these are archaic.. That means they have lot of markers from groups like: Denisova, Gorilla, Neand.. etc.
I am still focused on Africa,  I want to make sure what exactly happened there, how these archaic hominoids mixed between each other so as a result we have HS ? Why do we see more Deni and Neand outside of Africa ? Was this direct admix, or random distribution during OOA ?  All kind of questions and each of these is a new door to open..

I think you are better off just projecting Dzudzuana/Kotias onto your PCA, I would be more interested in that and it should be a more useful endeavor. I don't have experience or something but I'm sure humans and marmoset/macaque are not compatible that way... That should be just contamination.

My current hypothesis regarding Dzudzuana
1) Goyet/Fournol represent unadmixed 'West Eurasians'
2) Post-CI Eastern Europe get a small pulse of Basal from the Caucasus. Descendents of this mix include Kostenki/Sunghir, the Western part of ANE, and 'CWE'.
3) Dzudzuana = The above basal + 'CWE'

I wonder if you can also have Goyet/Fournol be admixed with this "basal" population?
You'd have a situation where all later paleolithic Europeans are a mix of an early('IUP') wave represented by Bacho Kiro and a later('UP') which is in highest proportion in Kostenki/Sunghir and lowest(but still present) in Goyet? The UP that stays in West Asia would be Basal basically.
Before expanding into Eurasia IUP would get more admixture from Neanderthals than UP(many possible explainations why)
If this model works out you get a simple model of two expansions, except Zlaty Kun, into Eurasia which also explains basal at the same time. 

This would supplant the standard Basal Eurasian model where Near-East = Europe + something deeper with Europe = Near-East + East Eurasia instead basically(there's a third option which is East Eurasia = Europe + something deeper). With "Europe" here I mean paleolithic Europe and "Near-East" also includes modern Europeans(basically any "basal-admixed" population). 
So it's an alternate explanation for why e.g. F4(outgroup, ancient europe, ENA, modern Europe)>0 and F4(outgroup, ENA, modern europe, ancient europe)>0 (analogous to East Asians = Onge + Tianyuan)

Something like this(just a general overview) is what I have in mind:



Arrows  from "Aurignacians" can be different mixes of BK/UP ancestry(e.g. more BK in Goyet).
In addition to Dzudzuana other populations in the Near-East, before additional admixture from ANE/ANA/etc, would also have the same admixture from Europe but in different amounts, Iran/Levant having more "basal" for example.

I really, really, really like this idea!
I don't think Ust' makes that much of a difference, he should be mixed under any model unless we assume he's somehow on his way to drift into a West Eurasian, and he's a geographic and genetic outlier and likely a dead-end.

[Quint]

30 closest ancient pops to the Altai Neanderthal in G25, using unscaled coordinates:

Distance to: Neanderthal:Altai_snpAD.DG
0.07816208 Malawi_Fingira_LSA_2500BP_noUDG
0.07846311 Malawi_Fingira_LSA_2500BP
0.08454868 Malawi_Hora_LSA_15500BP
0.08483004 Malawi_Fingira_LSA_6000BP
0.08494516 Malawi_Hora_LSA_8500BP.SG
0.08514693 Malawi_Chencherere_LSA_5200BP
0.09455237 South_Africa_1200BP.SG
0.12446951 South_Africa_2200BP.SG
0.12893881 South_Africa_1900BP.SG
0.13323378 Tanzania_Zanzibar_1300BP_noUDG
0.13384678 South_Africa_2000BP.SG
0.13526334 Tanzania_Zanzibar_1300BP
0.13682397 Tanzania_Kisese_LSA
0.13698696 Cameroon_SMA
0.14173338 Botswana_Xaro_EIA
0.14421564 Tanzania_PN_IA
0.14856722 Tanzania_Pemba_1400BP_noUDG
0.16284579 Kenya_Nyarindi_LSA_Kansyore
0.16651610 Kenya_Kakapel_LSA_Kansyore
0.16838699 Kenya_LSA
0.17541967 Kenya_400BP
0.17751756 South_Africa_400BP.SG
0.18221029 Ethiopia_4500BP
0.19205515 Mongolia_Salkhit_UP.SG
0.19946155 Mexico_Colonial_African
0.20065249 Romania_Oase_UP_enhanced
0.20385015 Congo_Kindoki_Protohistoric
0.20407756 Turkey_Roman_2
0.20415630 Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene
0.20473478 Congo_NgongoMbata_Protohistoric

Looks pretty accurate, now the same thing for the Macaque:

Distance to: Macaque_F_MERGED_simulated_g25
0.05070432 South_Africa_2000BP.SG
0.05548222 South_Africa_1900BP.SG
0.05981170 South_Africa_2200BP.SG
0.15363956 South_Africa_1200BP.SG
0.19405553 Malawi_Hora_LSA_8500BP.SG
0.19521832 Malawi_Chencherere_LSA_5200BP
0.19723268 Malawi_Fingira_LSA_6000BP
0.20183273 Malawi_Fingira_LSA_2500BP
0.20251055 Malawi_Fingira_LSA_2500BP_noUDG
0.20652552 Malawi_Hora_LSA_15500BP
0.24781797 Tanzania_Zanzibar_1300BP_noUDG
0.25172599 Tanzania_Zanzibar_1300BP
0.25173660 Tanzania_Kisese_LSA
0.25963528 Botswana_Xaro_EIA
0.26241538 Tanzania_PN_IA
0.26488835 Tanzania_Pemba_1400BP_noUDG
0.28589575 Kenya_Nyarindi_LSA_Kansyore
0.28702234 Cameroon_SMA
0.28731127 Kenya_LSA
0.29250481 Kenya_Kakapel_LSA_Kansyore
0.29507432 Ethiopia_4500BP
0.29544653 South_Africa_400BP.SG
0.29635591 Kenya_400BP
0.31468827 Mongolia_Salkhit_UP.SG
0.32236240 Germany_CordedWare.SG
0.32269252 Moldova_Cimmerian.SG
0.32348907 Romania_Oase_UP_enhanced
0.32426899 Turkey_Roman_2
0.32436658 Kenya_MoloCave_PastoralN
0.32459141 Germany_Hassleben_Germanic_elite_1.SG

[Jerome]

Has anyone ever tried to model iran_n/hotu as Pinarbasi+MA1/AG3?

I think using dzuduana as the source cuts/underestimates the ANE ancestry of Iran_n/CHG because Dzuduana itself seems to be a mix of aurignacians+basal Eurasian and we know ANE and aurignacians had shared ancestry and resembled each other quite a lot genetically so the aurignacian ancestry in Dzuduana simply eats up the ANE of iran_n.

Lazaridis said they are 24% ane and hotu 33%,I belive they were 30-35% and hotu was 40-45%,it's likely a bit underestimated.

[Jerome]

Kotias as a right pop? Shouldn’t in Qpadm the earlier populations be on right? Also can you model khvalnysk?

Interesting,does this mean AASI and southern east eurasians didn't take the central asia->altai->amur->south path?

Most people had been thinking this.

Dig around here for some discussions involving the different strains of Denisovan ancestry. I forget the details but it seemed to suggest that different Denisovan strains North .vs. South implied that there were Northern and Southern routes.

Here was some discussion regarding it: https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?...06#pid5506

however as I remember it from a thread in Anthrogenica, in the original paper there was no indication whether Tianyuan had only D0(or D2 as well), though people speculated that that might be the case(seems likely imo).
Perhaps there were a follow up that established this idk?

The paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...7419302181

Does this mean southern east eurasians moved to those lands through south asia?
I believe the IUP east/west split was somewhere in east caspian-hindu kush-Pamir triangle so moving through south asia would be very proximal for them

[Jerome]

To me it feels like the idea of Basal was built on the assumption that the Out of Africa was Y-haplogroup CT and E is native to the Middle East and represents this basal population. Then we got the Iberomaurusians and it looks more like E is just a recent migration and the basal signal is mostly caused by just this Iberomaurusian admixture and the erronous models based on it.
But the idea of Basal sticked around for some reason and everyone keeps choosing their own population to call Basal Eurasian (some have even chosen ANE, believe it or not ).
If it's really from a population earlier than the main OoA wave, I don't see any evidence that there's such admixture in Eurasia apart from the Iberomaurusians. Shouldn't there be a simple f-stat that show it, without assumptions like Ust-Ishim is unadmixed OoA? We have all kinds of haplogroup A, B, E Africans. Or are they too mixed with earlier African populations or later West Eurasians?
Or is Basal simply just the earliest split of the same OoA population, without Neanderthal? I'm not even sure about the lower Neanderthal part...

Code:

pop1    pop2    pop3    pop4    est    se    z    p    n
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Iran_GanjDareh_N    Laos_Hoabinhian.SG    0.000191843    0.000630904    0.304076412    0.761069677    261242
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Georgia_Satsurblia.SG    Laos_Hoabinhian.SG    0.000244638    0.000862176    0.283745025    0.776605787    161463
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Turkey_Epipaleolithic    Laos_Hoabinhian.SG    -0.001266509    0.000842443    -1.503375797    0.132742164    219501
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Israel_Natufian_contam    Laos_Hoabinhian.SG    -0.000777554    0.000884331    -0.879256897    0.379262001    135789
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Morocco_Iberomaurusian    Laos_Hoabinhian.SG    0.001130316    0.000687243    1.644712381    0.100029138    262010
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Iran_GanjDareh_N    Japan_Jomon.SG    0.000794769    0.000557704    1.425073065    0.154136082    380577
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Georgia_Satsurblia.SG    Japan_Jomon.SG    0.000339939    0.000745916    0.455733901    0.64858134    230556
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Turkey_Epipaleolithic    Japan_Jomon.SG    -0.001146785    0.000707427    -1.621065171    0.105003663    320134
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Israel_Natufian_contam    Japan_Jomon.SG    -0.000671692    0.000776237    -0.865318722    3.87E-01    195464
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Morocco_Iberomaurusian    Japan_Jomon.SG    0.00081042    0.000591526    1.370049419    0.170671476    381263
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Iran_GanjDareh_N    Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2    0.000242659    0.000319817    0.758744244    0.448005565    499896
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Georgia_Satsurblia.SG    Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2    0.000142991    0.000549587    0.260178604    0.794726008    295313
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Turkey_Epipaleolithic    Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2    -0.001397298    0.000532291    -2.625064372    0.008663259    423227
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Israel_Natufian_contam    Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2    -0.001217822    0.000550002    -2.214213397    0.026814103    260012
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Morocco_Iberomaurusian    Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2    0.000795812    0.000425867    1.868685471    0.061666587    499095
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Iran_GanjDareh_N    China_Fujian_Qihe_Epipaleolithic    0.001071602    0.000549066    1.95168095    0.050976096    360096
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Georgia_Satsurblia.SG    China_Fujian_Qihe_Epipaleolithic    0.001358032    0.000787727    1.723988868    0.084709853    215017
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Turkey_Epipaleolithic    China_Fujian_Qihe_Epipaleolithic    -0.000241672    0.000686099    -0.352240189    0.724658139    309304
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Israel_Natufian_contam    China_Fujian_Qihe_Epipaleolithic    0.00041958    0.000786175    0.533698288    5.94E-01    197221
Cameroon_SMA    Altai_Neanderthal.DG    Morocco_Iberomaurusian    China_Fujian_Qihe_Epipaleolithic    0.001696777    0.00059482    2.852590958    0.00433644    360836

(Not sure if these f4 stats are readable but they are supposed to show Jomon, Hoabinhian, Longlin and possibly AASI are similarly low Neanderthal.)

Kolompar, wouldn't the DG and SG and 1240k format be messing things here?

For example shotgun vs capture D stats of iranN.

MbutiDG Iran_N Villabruna Kostenki14 -0.0205 -5.041 42631 44411 821976


Mbuti Iran_Neolithic Kostenki14 Villabruna 0.0137 2.493 716391

They are diametrically different.

With another set..

Mbuti Ganj_Dareh_N Kostenki14 Villabruna 0.0178 3.918 833356

Even more different and Z score>3

The mnemonics guy on anthrogenica did mention that iranN definitely dosent have much basal and it rather seems to be an issue and artifact of sampling method(SG,1240k,etc)

Do the Iranians actually have much Basal ancestry. Maybe its an issue with how Ganj Dareh_N individuals were tested. The Wezmeh_N and Tepe Abdul Hosein_N samples seem to have more or less around the same amount of Neanderthal as the Anatolians.
I think array data may be skewed when it comes to measuring Neanderthal admixture in ways that is doesn't occur with shotgun sequences. Unless there is some other explanation for both shotgun sequenced Iran_N being significantly (0.5-0.7%) more Neanderthal admixture rich.

Could you try this using wezmeh and Abdul hosein?
The Tepe Guran samples are interesting too ,one has relatively high affinity to CHG.

Chad rohlsen confirmed this too and he also mentioned that it's also because of ENA affinity in iranN which lumps inflates basal eurasian if you don't account for the ENA and model iranN as just a mix of West Eurasian+Basal/Mbuti/Deep which lazaridis did in his 2016 study.

The issue was also the method. F4-ratio doesn't work, as all ENA ancestry accumulates into that "Basal" number for Iran. Direct methods, for instance, relationship to Ust-Ishim, Iran is significantly lower in BE than Natufians

It's form this thread https://genoplot.com/discussions/topic/2...tifact/270

In Dzuduana study iranN does get lower Basal/Mbuti in the modelling,somewhere like 24% when an ENA source is added while earlier basal was getting estimated from 45-66%.

[Jerome]

The results with V52 1240k  are similar, but not better.

Tantin,in the first image satsurblia.sg has a Z score of 0.990 while kotias is reaching 2.11
Both are lesser than turkey N and slightly lesser than iran_n too.
Does this mean Satsurblia has the least Neanderthal here and most basal?

Also,could you test this same model using Wezmeh,Abdul hosein and hotu?
Tepe guran would be interesting but I guess allentoft isn't merged yet

[TanTin]

Tantin,in the first image satsurblia.sg has a Z score of 0.990 while kotias is reaching 2.11
Both are lesser than turkey N and slightly lesser than iran_n too.
Does this mean Satsurblia has the least Neanderthal here and most basal?

Also,could you test this same model using Wezmeh,Abdul hosein and hotu?
Tepe guran would be interesting but I guess allentoft isn't merged yet

There was a bug with the converted dataset, that I reported in another topic. So I am not sure if these results were from that set with the bug. I have to re-do the test to verify if these are the correct numbers.